Cellphones Usable on Airplanes in 2006?

JOhn-E G writes "In a recent article from the New York Times it seems that airlines and cellphone makers are working towards allowing cellphones to be used on airplanes during flight. (free reg. required) Currently the plan is to have a mini cell tower, a picocell, on the plane that would intercept all the calls from people in the plane and relay them to satelites or ground towers. The FAA, FCC, and the airlines really want to be absolutely sure that there will be no interference anywhere. The article also says that cell use may still be banned during landings just to be safe. Changes would start in 2006."

Comments

Charges?

[keeleysam]

I wonder: 1. If it will be free 2. If it will work with all cell phone carriers. If they are gonan charge 30 buvks for a call, then screw it

Re:Charges?

[beh]

It wouldn't neccessarily need to speak to the ground stations of each provider. If it's relayed through a satellite it'll just be fed back as a regular (international) phone call.

What they WOULD need are roaming agreements with as many telcos as possible to allow all their mobiles to be used on to the plane. And - this is in the interest of both the airlines, as well as the telcos themselves [it IS a selling point for a telco if its mobiles can be used on a plane].

There is one issue, though:

Will they be able to offer services on all bands (900, 1800, 1900 MHz), or will they restrict to ONE band and require the passengers to have a mobile capable of it. I know, *I* would be quite pissed, if they would require me to buy a 1900MHz US band mobile so I could use it on a flight within Europe (900+1800MHz). I don't know whether there is micro-cell equipment that could handle all three...

As for the question about charges - that's fairly trivial, they'll charge everything that they can get away with...

I don't know whether the telcos will allow them to use variable roaming charges (usually, roaming charges are a fixed amount per minute), because I could easily see the airlines wanting to charge MORE for a call from a long-haul flight, as their corporate clients on the planes might be more pressed to actually MAKE calls from longer flights, rather than short local flights [the chances of you actually absolutely HAVING to make a call will certainly be lower on very short flights].

Also, with more and more people having notebooks, I see the possibility that the whole thing might fall away with the advent of Wifi Internet access on planes, as you could use VoIP instead.

Ohhh

[savagedome]

More inane chatter. Mile high was one place where you were safe for a while from all the i-have-got-to-talk-on-my-cell-phone people. Damn.

Re:Ohhh

[DarkBlackFox]

Isn't that the truth. I was putting gas in my car one day when a rather ditzy looking girl pulls up yapping on her phone. She hangs up, but immediately asks me why she can't use her phone while filling up. I mentioned something about high power antennas igniting the gas (whether or not it's actually true), and she responds with "oh well, that's stupid. they should fix gas so it won't do that."

Are people these days really so reliant on cell phones that they can't put them down for 5 minutes to fill up their gas tank or order food, or watch a movie, or drive down the freeway, or take a flight? I have a cell phone, but it only gets used once or twice a day, for no more than 5 minutes at a time. Makes me wonder how people survived 10 years ago, or even before the widespread growth of cell phone usage. Sad really.

Is it necessary?

[Nos.]

I don't know, is it really that important to stay "in touch" with friends, family, or work over the duration of a flight? I would think that most flights are 3 hours or less as this will pretty much get you across NA, or Europe. Longer flights certainly happen on a regular basis, but I just don't see it being necessary to be available or be in contact for the duration of a flight.

Interesting

[randyest]

OK, I expect a new technology. You did too -- right? Seems like we believe the airlines and the FAA and/or FCC when they tell us that cellphones can interfere with airplane communication and/or navigation systems (anything's possible right? can't be too careful at 20k ft. right?)

But then I read:

Until now, there have been concerns that cellphone use during flight could disrupt cell networks or interfere with the plane's navigation systems. The F.C.C., which has jurisdiction over ground communication, forbids the use of cellphones in flight out of concern that passengers calling from the air could overwhelm the nation's system of cell towers. That policy is currently under review and is likely to be modified this October, according to Lauren Patrich, an F.C.C. spokeswoman.

Whoah -- "until now?" The "policy is currently under review and is likely to be modified this October?" OMGWTFBBQ?

But alas, it's not that simple:

For its part, the F.A.A., which governs in-flight communications, recommends that airlines forbid the use of any device - including cellphones and pagers - that transmits signals, because of the risk of interference.

Woot! Administrative deathmatch -- FCC vs. FAA! Who will win!? Are you rrrready to tuuuune-to-this-freeeeequency?

Two newly proposed solutions will allow passengers to use their own cellphones to place calls in flight in a way that their makers say addresses both concerns. Unlike the current seat-back phone system, airlines will not have to pay for costly interior wiring. Instead, a small cell tower, known as a picocell, will be installed inside the cabin. Cellphone signals will be picked up by that cell, and then, depending on the system, relayed either first to a satellite or directly to the ground.

What's that? Not just a policy revision. Sigh. Actually a technological product that might prevent the FCC/FAA battle from ever taking place? Say it aint so . .

AirCell of Louisville, Colo., a large provider of in-flight communications services, has proposed a system that would bypass existing cellphone towers on the ground and direct calls instead to a separate grouping of receivers installed throughout the country. Equipment inside the plane would effectively create a cabin-wide hot spot handling voice and Internet communications.

Bah, it's true. They have a sufficiently expensive product to but that will allow them to charge sufficiently high fees so that we don't all ever have to know the truth about whether or not calling your sweetie from 30k ft. will crash the plane and they can still charge $5/min for airtime and the FCC doesn't have to kick the FAA's ass in public and all is well.

The AirCell system can handle any of the three digital phone standards in use by the American carriers: C.D.M.A., T.D.M.A. or G.S.M. Signals from each phone would be received by the plane's picocell, and then translated into one digital signal that would be sent to one of AirCell's terrestrial receivers. (To keep costs down, those receivers could be situated next to ones operated by cellphone carriers.) The signals would be separated and sent to the customer's carrier for routing and billing.

"Keep costs down." Did you see what he did there? He made you think they really want to keep costs down. Because it's worth it to take a percentage of smaller number if the average guy gets a break!

The system is designed to be able to transmit signals a distance of 50,000 feet, and hand them off from one ground receiver to the next while a caller is moving at 600 miles per hour. Because of the height at which planes fly, only 150 cell sites will be needed to provide coverage across the continental United States, according to Jack Blumenstein, AirCell's chief executive officer.

150 x what, $15 million? $10 million? I have no idea. But I bet the break-even point is at about 200 phone-fligh

Re:great...

[metlin]

Although Wi-fi would be cool, what I'd really like is some power outlets for portable elctronic devices on the flight. It really sucks, when your laptop battery conks out after a couple of hours, or if you need a power outlet for any of your gadgets.

This is worse when you are on international flights, when you have to sit for 12 straight hours doing nothing.

I guess they'd cite a million reasons why it's dangerous and not do it, but if they can allow cellphones, why not this.

Re:bans

[NanoGator]

"How exactly does banning me from making a cell phone call during a flight keep anyone any safer given that I can make the same call on the "AirPhone" on the back of the seat in front of me? "

A.) The antenna for the plane phone, to the best of my understanding, is on the outside of the plane. Assuming I'm right, shielding equipment from that should be possible.

B.) They can fully test the one phone system with the equipment on board. They cannot test every single phone that works on different frequencies based on the particular service they use.

C.) A Britney Spears ring tone won't have the chance to cause a riot. :P

Re:Good

[huchida]

I've never believed that using your laptop, game boy or mp3 player/walkman "interfered with the instruments", or whatever excuse they give you.

I think they don't want you to use any electronic devices during takeoff and landing (particularly headphones) because that's the time when something is most likely to go horribly wrong. They want you alert.